On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Doesn’t take much to negotiate them both simultaneously and simply sign one and then the other in the EU’s desired sequencing with the effectiveness of the first conditional on signing the second.
But in that case no Withdrawal Treaty would be required. We would just implement the Trade Deal having got it done in the 2 years from the triggering of article 50. Seems unrealistic.
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach then the current “fair access” silliness.
My medical school has had this policy for some years, for undergraduate Medical Degrees. It has had an effect as private schools often over egg their predictions and state schools under do them. The extra year of maturity helps too.
Even if they are over-egging / under doing it, given past performance I can imagine there is also plenty of conscious and subconscious bias of well that’s a good school they have had loads of kids come here with top grades vs we don’t get many / any from there, could be a bit risky if they will actually get that.
Which brings us back to the inequities of private education. There was a very interesting article in The Observer at the weekend. It's well worth a read even if you are very pro private education.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
That's what I thought. But FWIW Radio 4's 5pm programme was absolutely hyperventilating about it - the commentators said it was "extraordinary", "civil war", and much more. If I were an SNP supporter I'd be pretty cheesed off that they weren't asked to reply.
I've incidentally always thought it odd that there's an hour of news from 5 to 6, immediately followed by half an hour of news.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
That's what I thought. But FWIW Radio 4's 5pm programme was absolutely hyperventilating about it - the commentators said it was "extraordinary", "civil war", and much more. If I were an SNP supporter I'd be pretty cheesed off that they weren't asked to reply.
I've incidentally always thought it odd that there's an hour of news from 5 to 6, immediately followed by half an hour of news.
Just to add an extra layer of complexity to a General Election - the SNP splitting into two factions who won't talk to each other!
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
That's what I thought. But FWIW Radio 4's 5pm programme was absolutely hyperventilating about it - the commentators said it was "extraordinary", "civil war", and much more. If I were an SNP supporter I'd be pretty cheesed off that they weren't asked to reply.
I've incidentally always thought it odd that there's an hour of news from 5 to 6, immediately followed by half an hour of news.
Just to add an extra layer of complexity to a General Election - the SNP splitting into two factions who won't talk to each other!
Well, they wouldn't want to be left out, would they?
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
That's what I thought. But FWIW Radio 4's 5pm programme was absolutely hyperventilating about it - the commentators said it was "extraordinary", "civil war", and much more. If I were an SNP supporter I'd be pretty cheesed off that they weren't asked to reply.
I've incidentally always thought it odd that there's an hour of news from 5 to 6, immediately followed by half an hour of news.
Maybe it's like the 24 hour news channel - recycling the same four stories in a loop to save money?
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
thanks. so how is that any different from the G?
Dunno. But I didn't come up with it, so I'm not responsible for any tautologies.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
I think I have done being polite. The morons in the ERG are a public menace. How they can think that we will have any kind of working relationship with the EU after spending 2 years agreeing what our liabilities are and then refusing to pay them, agreeing the framework of a trade deal and then telling them we want to start again and how it somehow doesn't matter that their government (on paper at least) doesn't have even the beginnings of a statutory framework or preparatory work done for no deal but we should somehow barge ahead anyway.
I mean, seriously, how do they think that is going to go for us or for our relations with the EU?Idiots.
You're assuming that they intend to act in the interest of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. The reasons why I disdain concepts like "Anglosphere", "Canzuk" is that they are abstract nouns not coterminous with the UK. If one is loyal to them one need not be loyal to the UK (which is inconveniently real and demands taxes), and in some cases one may even act against it. Couple that with English exceptionalism, the belief that distance doesn't matter, and the belief that it is better to trade with ones friends, and you see why they are acting as they are. They're not idiots: they're acting rationally. But I don't think they're acting for the people of the UK.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
Your style isn't bad, but you come across as a bit crabbed.
Grieve and Boles and their supporters, by their actions, clearly telling the electorate that when they said they would listen to the voice of the electorate on Brexit, they didn’t mean it. Nor did they mean it when they campaigned on a manifesto commitment to exit the customs union and the Single Market.
ERG have simply been too lazy to put together a coherent plan for Brexit. May has come up with a plan that breaches her own red lines and manifesto commitments that is universally reviled.
Labour are utterly clueless on this subject as on most.
Where it all ends up is anyone’s guess. Not a great advert for British democracy though, if you can still call it democracy given the direction Grieve is reported to be heading.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
Your style isn't bad, but you come across as a bit crabbed.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
We are but mere minnows, unlike grayling and rudd.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
Is that your sole contribution? If so it's a tartar.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
Is that your sole contribution? If so it's a tartar.
I'm an old trout, I can't be putting up with all this sprattling on.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
We are but mere minnows, unlike grayling and rudd.
I have a vision of Grayling deep fried, served up with some nice chips.
Before anyone thinks Justin or Tim/Grabcocque has hacked my account, I mean the fish!
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
Is that your sole contribution? If so it's a tartar.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
Is that your sole contribution? If so it's a tartar.
I'm an old trout, I can't be putting up with all this sprattling on.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
It's been reclaimed. It refers to a state of mind, not matching societal or genre norms, but not so far away from them as to be rejected by the bourgeoisie. The point is to raise a frisson amongst the well-off, but not to shock them too much.
Although to be honest, terms are evolving so fast it'll probably be outre again at some point.
I love the idea that politicos/punters/anoraks are anxiously turning to PB as we perch on the precipice for a moment of clarity and insight, whereas all they are get is a bunch of increasingly bad fish puns, however well disguised.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
Is that your sole contribution? If so it's a tartar.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
I love the idea that politicos/punters/anoraks are anxiously turning to PB as we perch on the precipice for a moment of clarity and insight, whereas all they are get is a bunch of increasingly bad fish puns, however well disguised.
And its not as if we have not had shoals of these puns before. Pretty much every time the SNP leadership is mentioned in fact.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
All the right percentages but not necessarily in the right order:
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
I think I would have your 60% and 25% the other way around. At the moment no Brexit really has to be favourite.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
All the right percentages but not necessarily in the right order:
I love the idea that politicos/punters/anoraks are anxiously turning to PB as we perch on the precipice for a moment of clarity and insight, whereas all they are get is a bunch of increasingly bad fish puns, however well disguised.
We can always speculate unlikely MPs to be party leaders. Quick. Um, Gavin Williamson for PM! There, that's Atticus's Times column sorted...
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning [ie people who aren't certain what their sexuality is]
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
SO...
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow) Most MPs are terrified of No Deal Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
I love the idea that politicos/punters/anoraks are anxiously turning to PB as we perch on the precipice for a moment of clarity and insight, whereas all they are get is a bunch of increasingly bad fish puns, however well disguised.
And its not as if we have not had shoals of these puns before. Pretty much every time the SNP leadership is mentioned in fact.
Well, it is rather a good opportunity, Salmond who now works for the Russians followed by Sturgeon.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I am not sure OGH has enough bandwidth to start listing all of May's tremendous tactical mistakes.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
Thinking she could cash in her Queen of Brexit act for a big majority. It makes all of her posturing about representing the will of the people versus parliament look ridiculous.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I am not sure OGH has enough bandwidth to start listing all of May's tremendous tactical mistakes.
True. Though I'd argue [given the totemic nature the backstop has become] that was the biggest but far from the only one.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
Thinking she could cash in her Queen of Brexit act for a big majority. It makes all of her posturing about representing the will of the people versus parliament look ridiculous.
Indeed I'd make that her second biggest flaw.
Though the two were related. Throwing away her majority was bad enough, having to rely upon the DUP was bad enough ... throwing away her majority, having to rely upon the DUP then being arrogant enough to cut the DUP out of negotiations on the Irish border and assume she could ram through a deal those she relied upon opposed ... that was madness.
* through some as yet unidentified dubious technical instrument or some highly dangerous act of brinkmanship ** by the ERG disrupting parliament. ***probably to serve a GE.
I love the idea that politicos/punters/anoraks are anxiously turning to PB as we perch on the precipice for a moment of clarity and insight, whereas all they are get is a bunch of increasingly bad fish puns, however well disguised.
Fish go off quickly. Perhaps we should put the puns on ice.
And to be honest, giventhe total fucking idiocy, inanity, lack of knowledge, drunkenness, posturing and dishonesty we're getting from our politicians at the moment, fish puns are grown up by comparison.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
SO...
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow) Most MPs are terrified of No Deal Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
I was talking to a Westminster friend an hour ago and they were quite pessimistic.
Says the Stop No Deal Brexit coalition is fracturing between those that favour pivoting to Norway and those who want another plebiscite.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning [ie people who aren't certain what their sexuality is]
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
The penultimate day of the withdrawal agreement debate is no time for cheerful matters like fish puns. We should delay tilapia times.
We're just trying to reduce the tench-un.
Enough of this codswallop sir! Know your plaice.
Is that your sole contribution? If so it's a tartar.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
SO...
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow) Most MPs are terrified of No Deal Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
I was talking to a Westminster friend an hour ago and they were quite pessimistic.
Says the Stop No Deal Brexit coalition is fracturing between those that favour pivoting to Norway and those who want another plebiscite.
Since one of those options isn't available and the other would probably provoke a no-deal Brexit, that has the appearance of two monks fighting over a month's supply of the pill.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
Thinking she could cash in her Queen of Brexit act for a big majority. It makes all of her posturing about representing the will of the people versus parliament look ridiculous.
Indeed I'd make that her second biggest flaw.
Though the two were related. Throwing away her majority was bad enough, having to rely upon the DUP was bad enough ... throwing away her majority, having to rely upon the DUP then being arrogant enough to cut the DUP out of negotiations on the Irish border and assume she could ram through a deal those she relied upon opposed ... that was madness.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
SO...
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow) Most MPs are terrified of No Deal Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
I was talking to a Westminster friend an hour ago and they were quite pessimistic.
Says the Stop No Deal Brexit coalition is fracturing between those that favour pivoting to Norway and those who want another plebiscite.
Since one of those options isn't available and the other would probably provoke a no-deal Brexit, that has the appearance of two monks fighting over a month's supply of the pill.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
SO...
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow) Most MPs are terrified of No Deal Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
I was talking to a Westminster friend an hour ago and they were quite pessimistic.
Says the Stop No Deal Brexit coalition is fracturing between those that favour pivoting to Norway and those who want another plebiscite.
Since one of those options isn't available and the other would probably provoke a no-deal Brexit, that has the appearance of two monks fighting over a month's supply of the pill.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Indeed so. It's one reason the MV should never have been pulled since it is being lost anyway, and at least the 'going back to the EU' stage to ask for more would have been done then with the proof from May that parliament would not back it. Not that it would affect the EU's position any, but it would cut out the argument, still seen, that despite begging for it to be taken out or at least legally time limited, the EU are still not budging only because we have not said no firmly enough yet.
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
SO...
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow) Most MPs are terrified of No Deal Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
I was talking to a Westminster friend an hour ago and they were quite pessimistic.
Says the Stop No Deal Brexit coalition is fracturing between those that favour pivoting to Norway and those who want another plebiscite.
I'm surprised that they're not considering an attempt at negotiating a Norwayesque settlement and then holding a BINO vs Remain vote after that (with revocation held in reserve just in case the EU27 can't or won't all agree to extend.)
(nothing concrete, more delay, fudge or another vote)
Those still end up with no brexit or no deal.
But when??? You assume this ever ends. Perhaps we we'll get stuck in infinite A50 loop, where we are always leaving but never leave.
It's one way to satisfy everyone.
We should never have triggered A50, just constantly being about to trigger it.
At the very beginning I thought that was quite plausible. May could have set up endless domestic hurdles to triggering A50 and given herself a long list of political 'enemies' to 'fight' against in her quest to honour the referendum.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
So somebody else has said upthread, but when I was researching various forms of subculture I was told it was Queer.
It puzzled me and it still does, but as I am not gay it didn't really seem either important or my problem.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Fish puns! Brill......
Hmm I need a good fish pun. I will have to mullet over.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
I've seen it both ways.
Edit: Not a joke by the way, though it sounds like one
(nothing concrete, more delay, fudge or another vote)
Those still end up with no brexit or no deal.
But when??? You assume this ever ends. Perhaps we we'll get stuck in infinite A50 loop, where we are always leaving but never leave.
It's one way to satisfy everyone.
We should never have triggered A50, just constantly being about to trigger it.
Not without being better prepared. May is like the ERG - she had no idea of what she wanted or where she wanted to end up when she triggered it. She has just taken what the EU gave her and ignored trade altogether.
Had she gone for a trade deal from the start, it would have been a more painful start but she’d have ended up in a much better place.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Currently Parliament hasn't yet rejected the deal and the PM is still backing it. Plus I think once they agreed it with May they assumed Parliament would back it and by that point had put their eggs in this basket.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
I've seen it both ways.
Edit: Not a joke by the way, though it sounds like one
The Tory party just aren't what they were. They can't even organise a decent coup these days.
Where is the party of Duncan Smith, Hague, Major, Thatcher, Heath, Home, Eden, Chamberlain, Lloyd George (sort of) Austen Chamberlain, Balfour and Bentinck when you need it?!!
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Thinking about the chances I make it
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
SO...
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow) Most MPs are terrified of No Deal Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
The problem is that most of the MPs who are terrified of No Deal and who would probably like to stay in the EU are in the opposition benches - and it would take a government to stop Brexit.
If the government benches were shaped by your maths this would be easy. But stopping Brexit now would probably worse than decimate the Tory Party.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Currently Parliament hasn't yet rejected the deal and the PM is still backing it. Plus I think once they agreed it with May they assumed Parliament would back it and by that point had put their eggs in this basket.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
They must not have been looking very carefully if they thought parliament would back whatever she brought back.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Currently Parliament hasn't yet rejected the deal and the PM is still backing it. Plus I think once they agreed it with May they assumed Parliament would back it and by that point had put their eggs in this basket.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
They must not have been looking very carefully if they thought parliament would back whatever she brought back.
I honestly thought it would. I thought Parliament would be too terrified of no deal not to do so. I was wrong.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Currently Parliament hasn't yet rejected the deal and the PM is still backing it. Plus I think once they agreed it with May they assumed Parliament would back it and by that point had put their eggs in this basket.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
They must not have been looking very carefully if they thought parliament would back whatever she brought back.
I honestly thought it would. I thought Parliament would be too terrified of no deal not to do so. I was wrong.
If the CJEU had not come up with that ludicrous ruling, Parliament still would. Because there wouldn't be the false hope (and it is a false hope, unfortunately) that if this deal falls we'll stay in.
Which makes me wonder who or what was leaning on them, bluntly. They came up with a recipe for total chaos based upon a twisted reading of non-existent words that no sane person would have thought appropriate (although that qualification probably lets out the advocate general and the CJEU, of course).
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Currently Parliament hasn't yet rejected the deal and the PM is still backing it. Plus I think once they agreed it with May they assumed Parliament would back it and by that point had put their eggs in this basket.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
They must not have been looking very carefully if they thought parliament would back whatever she brought back.
I honestly thought it would. I thought Parliament would be too terrified of no deal not to do so. I was wrong.
The ECJ decision may have had a big impact. While the ERG and other leavers would have seen the decision be much closer if the deal had been more to their liking, with many remainer MPs backing it as they do currently, the fear tactics took a big hit among remainers knowing that they had the ultimate out to fall back on.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
So somebody else has said upthread, but when I was researching various forms of subculture I was told it was Queer.
It puzzled me and it still does, but as I am not gay it didn't really seem either important or my problem.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
You lost me a bit after "May has made one tremendous tactical mistake..."
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
So somebody else has said upthread, but when I was researching various forms of subculture I was told it was Queer.
It puzzled me and it still does, but as I am not gay it didn't really seem either important or my problem.
Incidentally, was that a deliberate pun?
Naturally
There are occasionally two Qs, in which case both Queer and Questioning are represented. If there's only one I believe it's for Queer, by convention.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
So somebody else has said upthread, but when I was researching various forms of subculture I was told it was Queer.
It puzzled me and it still does, but as I am not gay it didn't really seem either important or my problem.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
when we were at LGBTI I spotted that we only needed an E for them to be GIBLETs. not sure how Q got in there or what it means TBH.
Queer.
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
I thought it was Questioning ie can’t make up your f****** mind
I've seen it both ways.
Edit: Not a joke by the way, though it sounds like one
Too much information...
In the US, the list of abbreviations includes both Qs - queer and questioning. I have not done the course, so please don't ask me to define either
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
You lost me a bit after "May has made one tremendous tactical mistake..."
Only one mistake??
He didn't say it was the only mistake, just that there was one tremendous one. The others have been incredible, outstanding, gut wrenching, and so on and so forth.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Currently Parliament hasn't yet rejected the deal and the PM is still backing it. Plus I think once they agreed it with May they assumed Parliament would back it and by that point had put their eggs in this basket.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
I'd have made Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster part of the negotiating team from day 1.
Though we 'd still be stuck with twats like Guto Bebb and Andrew Bridgen.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
You lost me a bit after "May has made one tremendous tactical mistake..."
Only one mistake??
He didn't say it was the only mistake, just that there was one tremendous one. The others have been incredible, outstanding, gut wrenching, and so on and so forth.
May has made one tremendous tactical mistake which is why she will lose her deal.
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
I don't understand this argument that anyone could have made the EU back down if it was clear they were serious about rejecting the backstop. Isn't parliament making it clear right now that it's rejecting the backstop? And the EU aren't budging.
Currently Parliament hasn't yet rejected the deal and the PM is still backing it. Plus I think once they agreed it with May they assumed Parliament would back it and by that point had put their eggs in this basket.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
I'd have made Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster part of the negotiating team from day 1.
Though we 'd still be stuck with twats like Guto Bebb and Andrew Bridgen.
The weird thing is this deal seems to be very popular in Northern Ireland and especially among the DUP's own supporters.
Comments
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/derp
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/derp
I'm surprised it's survived, given its rather homophobic overtones.
No Brexit or No Deal - what will it be?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/13/public-schools-david-kynaston-francis-green-engines-of-privilege
I've incidentally always thought it odd that there's an hour of news from 5 to 6, immediately followed by half an hour of news.
(nothing concrete, more delay, fudge or another vote)
ERG have simply been too lazy to put together a coherent plan for Brexit. May has come up with a plan that breaches her own red lines and manifesto commitments that is universally reviled.
Labour are utterly clueless on this subject as on most.
Where it all ends up is anyone’s guess. Not a great advert for British democracy though, if you can still call it democracy given the direction Grieve is reported to be heading.
https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1084859849735852032
https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1084880122040254470
https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1084881144934473729
The more May digs her heels in, the more likely that some kind of ramshackle Parliamentary coalition will be patched together by desperate pro-EU MPs to stop Brexit, one would've thought.
Of course, No Deal is the current default position, and it's still possible if no majority can be assembled to defeat May once and for all.
Before anyone thinks Justin or Tim/Grabcocque has hacked my account, I mean the fish!
Although to be honest, terms are evolving so fast it'll probably be outre again at some point.
60% No Deal Brexit
15% A Deal is agreed (be it Mrs May’s deal or a variation thereof) and Parliament accepts it.
25% No Brexit at the end of March, either through extension/revocation of A50 or a new plebiscite.
It's one way to satisfy everyone.
...Is that your sole contribution? If so it's a tartar.
I’m going to skate this whole bit of banter...
That actually scans and rhymes...
60% No Brexit at the end of March
25% May's Deal
15% No Deal Brexit
She should have from the start made it clear that any Irish solution needed an all-Irish approval. Not just the government of Ireland (and the EU) and the government of the UK agreeing, but the parties of Northern Ireland represented foremost by the DUP as the largest party (but Sinn Fein etc too). In other words give the DUP a veto on a deal.
Barnier never took May seriously. Harder to do with Arlene Foster.
Had it been a case from the start that any Irish solution needed the DUP on board then by now when we're voting by definition the DUP would be on board. But not just the DUP, without their concerns its hard to see many Tories being concerned with a backstop that the Irish parties unanimously have agreed to.
Most MPs hate the Deal (liable to be defeated by a landslide tomorrow)
Most MPs are terrified of No Deal
Most MPs would probably like to stay in the EU
And yet you reckon it's very likely that No Deal happens anyway - presumably because, even though they think it's disastrous, they're incapable of doing anything else?
If that's how it pans out, would this qualify as the most useless Parliament ever?
But maybe we should just can them.
She really was a terrible choice.
Though the two were related. Throwing away her majority was bad enough, having to rely upon the DUP was bad enough ... throwing away her majority, having to rely upon the DUP then being arrogant enough to cut the DUP out of negotiations on the Irish border and assume she could ram through a deal those she relied upon opposed ... that was madness.
34% May's deal *
33% No deal default **
33% Delay ***
* through some as yet unidentified dubious technical instrument or some highly dangerous act of brinkmanship
** by the ERG disrupting parliament.
***probably to serve a GE.
And to be honest, giventhe total fucking idiocy, inanity, lack of knowledge, drunkenness, posturing and dishonesty we're getting from our politicians at the moment, fish puns are grown up by comparison.
Says the Stop No Deal Brexit coalition is fracturing between those that favour pivoting to Norway and those who want another plebiscite.
"HAS MAY GONE MAD?"
It puzzled me and it still does, but as I am not gay it didn't really seem either important or my problem.
Incidentally, was that a deliberate pun?
Edit: Not a joke by the way, though it sounds like one
Had she gone for a trade deal from the start, it would have been a more painful start but she’d have ended up in a much better place.
Had the DUP had crystal clear veto rights from the beginning the negotiations would have gone differently. May by making it clear she would sign absolutely anything (combined with the assumption Parliament would back whatever she signed) left them with a blank cheque.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1084889730108612609
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1084890658832289792
Where is the party of Duncan Smith, Hague, Major, Thatcher, Heath, Home, Eden, Chamberlain, Lloyd George (sort of) Austen Chamberlain, Balfour and Bentinck when you need it?!!
If the government benches were shaped by your maths this would be easy. But stopping Brexit now would probably worse than decimate the Tory Party.
Which makes me wonder who or what was leaning on them, bluntly. They came up with a recipe for total chaos based upon a twisted reading of non-existent words that no sane person would have thought appropriate (although that qualification probably lets out the advocate general and the CJEU, of course).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxVivkXUfdU
I mean, not literally, just out of the British political scene.
Only one mistake??
If the word implacable did not exist we would have to invent it in order to describe the way that Nigel Dodds of the DUP is looking and sounding.
Though we 'd still be stuck with twats like Guto Bebb and Andrew Bridgen.
It looks like even the whips are revolting...